Replies

It was decided by God when He created us in His image.

God and God's law are not secular law.

And why the bleep is the President pretending the executive branch is inferior to the judicial? He violates his oath who vows to uphold and defend the Constitution and then reneges on his duty to protect babies.

I don't think the President pretends any such thing and he can't overturn SCOTUS unilaterally without violating the Constitution. Arguing that SCOTUS has violated it isn't valid unless you believe "two wrongs make a right." The rule of law isn't restored by ignoring it for your own benefit. But Congress is the body Constitutionally mandated to challenge SCOTUS not the Executive.

To stick at technicalities (as you seem to be doing) is “penny-wise and pound-foolish”.

Holding to the position that you can't declare the Constitution dead on one hand and talk about how to use the Constitution as a remedy is hardly a "technicality." It's just a bare minimum hold on reality. I demand at least that much in an argument.

1. The Constitution has been and is consistently thrown over when it becomes an obstacle to the federal government. How can they become sticklers about it now?

Red herring. Two rights don't make a wrong. Anarchists can't "work within the system."

2. The Constitution was designed to protect our God-given, unalienable rights. When it fails to do so, it fails its entire purpose and needs to be rejected. (It doesn’t, of course.)

Well if it doesn't need to be rejected then it hasn't failed I guess. (Which Founding Father promised a flawless Constitution or the flawless implementation of it?)

3. The President is charged with the duty of enforcing the laws of this nation, of which the Declaration is the first.

I understand your sentiment about that but it is another fallacy. The DoI may be the source of the guiding philosophy our founders used to establish the Constitution (the actual first Supreme Law of the Land) but the DoI is not a part of our secular canon of laws.

1. Red herring.

No, it's not a red herring. No one who abrogates the law for his own purposes can legitimately object to another abrogating the law for his purposes.

2. When we are killing our kids under cover of the Constitution, either it has failed us or we have failed to follow it. (This is the same justification given in the Declaration for the break with Great Britain.)

The purpose of the law is not to promote murder. Nor can any law allowing murder can be considered legitimate.

3. If the Declaration is wrong, we need to apologize to England and start singing "God Save the Queen". Or if all men are not endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life, then the question of killing one's kid is of no consequence whatsoever (except insofar as the social compact du jour regulates it.)

But if words mean anything, the Declaration rests its argument on "the laws of nature and of nature's God", and appeals to its audience to judge governments by whether or not they secure those rights granted by the Creator. Being the founding document of this nation, it is by all means superior to and sits in judgment over the Constitution and the resulting government. Sitting in judgment over government was its very raison d'etre!

The Declaration argues:

That to secure these rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.), governments are instituted among men,...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, (etc.)

Now you tell me whether or not the Declaration sits in judgment over the form of government erected by the Constitution, and whether or not the Declaration submits its own judgment to that of "the laws of nature and of nature's God".

If the Constitution permitted baby-butchery, it would warrant condemnation, and all our adulation of it wouldn't bring back the life of a single murdered child.

But of course it permits no such thing. No, instead some have usurped power contrary to the Constitution and overruled its and the Declaration's protection of the baby's right to live. In so doing, these usurpers have violated (in order of increasing superiority) the Constitution, the Declaration, and the law of God.

But we get stuck on the bottom-rung subsidiary law, and bow and scrape before the "Supreme" Court, and hope for a President who will pack the Court with justices who will give us a "supreme law of the land" more to our liking. And meanwhile, for abiding by "the rule of law", we pat ourselves on the back with hands stained by the blood of millions of innocents.

But it's okay - we're pro-life!

*sigh*